RAMESHBHAI DAYALAL PANDYA Vs. PADMADEVI S JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Ingawale and Shri Saste. The petitioners are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by J. M. F. C. , Ichalkaranji in the matter of Criminal Case No. 404 of 1997.

(2.) SHRI Ingawale submitted that the respondent/original complainant did not issue a notice to the petitioners, as contemplated by provision of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and filed the said complaint and hence the said complaint is bad in law. He submitted that the learned Magistrate did not notice this glaring infirmity and directed the police to make the enquiry in view of provisions of section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Shri Saste A. P. P. appearing for the prosecution, submitted that the said complaint is revolving around the provisions of section 420 of Indian Penal Code and no around section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, there is not need of seeing, whether the said notice has been issued or not. He justified the said order as correct, proper and legal and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

(3.) THE complaint shows that the original complainant alleged that the petitioner committed offence punishable under provisions of sections 406, 420 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Section 406 is not spelled out by the allegations made in the complaint but prima facie case has been made out in respect of an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience) empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of offence.